Trump Cancels Chicago Rally Due to Violent Protesters

[ElrondHubbard]

My point being, whether or not Trump himself is personally racist it doesn't take a very big f*cking leap for someone to view him as one. IOW, at the very least it shouldn't be all that shocking that someone could perceive him as one and why a minority might be concerned.

I seriously doubt that Trump is a racist. What he is is an opportunist. And if appealing to racists serves his opportunistic agenda, then he's perfectly happy to do that.

What's difficult is digging under the rhetoric and finding some underlying consistent principle that he draws on for the benefit of the nation as a whole. I haven't been able to find one, but maybe that's just me.

[ElrondHubbard]

---

Thanks for the link. I'm no mathematician, but I got the basic gist. So basically, the hockey stick approach is wrong...gotcha. What Muller writes is compelling, but look at the end of the article and I'll quote it.

"It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections."

So if McIntyre and McKitrick aren't so sure, is this article factual or just drawing upon a different model? As for the Global Warming to Climate Change name shift, that was used by both left as well as right-wing commentators to identify the movement. Whatever, I'll grant that the collapse of the ozone layer and the rise in worldwide temps isn't as dramatic as some doomsday predictors thought it would be. Nevertheless, there is concern.

As a sidenote, the 1991 movie, The Arrival, starring Charlie Sheen, takes an interesting sci-fi approach to it all. It's actually very good and does present a plausible scenario.

This is all a misdirection tactic. No, global warming has not been debunked -- one particular dataset has been disputed. No, the entire scientific community is not a global communist conspiracy, that's just another form of denial.

But this is the weapon that the Right uses. The climate deniers use the same tactics, and many of the same mouthpieces, that science deniers in the employ of creationism and of the tobacco industry have used in their never-ending fight against inconvenient reality. The difference is that it's really not all some half-vast right-wing conspiracy, it's a lot of irrational individuals grasping desperately for any rhetoric they can find that can somehow be construed as supporting their delusions.

When the right wing can stop denying basic, fundamental science in the service of their particular agendas, then I'll be a lot more inclined to take their arguments about economics, justice, and morality more seriously. But if they can't get the simple facts about the physical world even close to correct, it's hard to imagine that any of their other arguments can be accurate either.

[DuracellBunny]

This is all a misdirection tactic. No, global warming has not been debunked -- one particular dataset has been disputed. No, the entire scientific community is not a global communist conspiracy, that's just another form of denial.

But this is the weapon that the Right uses. The climate deniers use the same tactics, and many of the same mouthpieces, that science deniers in the employ of creationism and of the tobacco industry have used in their never-ending fight against inconvenient reality. The difference is that it's really not all some half-vast right-wing conspiracy, it's a lot of irrational individuals grasping desperately for any rhetoric they can find that can somehow be construed as supporting their delusions.

When the right wing can stop denying basic, fundamental science in the service of their particular agendas, then I'll be a lot more inclined to take their arguments about economics, justice, and morality more seriously. But if they can't get the simple facts about the physical world even close to correct, it's hard to imagine that any of their other arguments can be accurate either.

I have to pull you up on this in general in regards to climate change. Science works by observing a phenomenon, creating a model that fits the data and then using that model to predict events. If the predictions match observations, then you assume the model is correct.

The last IPCC report had people admitting that the amount of CO2 absorbed by seawater was out by a factor of 2 in the model, but they hadn't changed the model.

Climate change is a debate, it isn't science. Neither side of the argument has a model whose predictions match reality. What that means in simple terms is that the scientific community doesn't actually know, they are guessing. I have no idea what is happening and neither does anybody else. Anybody who claims to be able to prove something either for or against climate change is trying to sell you something.

[Corbi]

I have to pull you up on this in general in regards to climate change. Science works by observing a phenomenon, creating a model that fits the data and then using that model to predict events. If the predictions match observations, then you assume the model is correct.

The last IPCC report had people admitting that the amount of CO2 absorbed by seawater was out by a factor of 2 in the model, but they hadn't changed the model.

Climate change is a debate, it isn't science. Neither side of the argument has a model whose predictions match reality. What that means in simple terms is that the scientific community doesn't actually know, they are guessing. I have no idea what is happening and neither does anybody else. Anybody who claims to be able to prove something either for or against climate change is trying to sell you something.

All of the above.
For every argument/debate that is all for climate change you can also find an opposing view against it. The scientific community is split on this because there is no way to prove any of the theories. Much like Einsteins theory of relativity or most of the theories that Hawking comes up we currently have no way to prove them one way or the other. They sound neat and at times even plausible but they are just theories.

[Corbi]

Hmm,
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1992...llary-clinton/

[ElrondHubbard]

I have to pull you up on this in general in regards to climate change. Science works by observing a phenomenon, creating a model that fits the data and then using that model to predict events. If the predictions match observations, then you assume the model is correct.

The last IPCC report had people admitting that the amount of CO2 absorbed by seawater was out by a factor of 2 in the model, but they hadn't changed the model.

Climate change is a debate, it isn't science. Neither side of the argument has a model whose predictions match reality. What that means in simple terms is that the scientific community doesn't actually know, they are guessing. I have no idea what is happening and neither does anybody else. Anybody who claims to be able to prove something either for or against climate change is trying to sell you something.

I understand your point, but there's a nuance that I think you're missing. Climate models DO change in response to data. What I believe the IPCC was saying in this case is that yes, certain data points have not matched certain predictions. The model does need to be changed in response to this. But adjusting a model is not simply a matter of punching an "enter" key. It's a long process that requires making sure that the new model not only accommodates new data, but also continues to account for previously existing data. The new data is not being ignored. Climate change is indeed science, and the practice of science is slow, deliberate, and careful. A discrepancy in a particular detail of a larger model does not simply upend the entire theory. The theory, which the models attempt to reflect, remains sound, and the overall predictions do match what is being seen in the real world. Finding details that don't match are an important aspect of perfecting the models, but unless they also contradict all previous observations, the model remains provisionally valid.

Scientific models are ALWAYS provisional, especially within a science that is actively being developed. You can safely assume that they will always be wrong on some level, but Asimov's Relativity Of Wrong fully applies. And within that larger view, the climate models that exist are "good enough" for us to know that warming is happening, sea levels are rising , ice is melting, weather instability is increasing, and yes it IS a result of human activity. Within that larger truth, there are details that still need to be figured out.

Which I'm sure is somehow related to Trump and violence, but I haven't seen a good model for that relationship yet.

[ElrondHubbard]

All of the above.
For every argument/debate that is all for climate change you can also find an opposing view against it. The scientific community is split on this because there is no way to prove any of the theories. Much like Einsteins theory of relativity or most of the theories that Hawking comes up we currently have no way to prove them one way or the other. They sound neat and at times even plausible but they are just theories.

Technically, "proof" never applies to a scientific theory, so you can get away with saying "there's no proof" for any scientific idea you wish to deny. That's not particularly useful. However, the fact that you can use GPS and electricity made from nuclear power without even thinking twice about it is about as certain a demonstration of the correctness of Einstein's theory as any other tidbit you can think of, either for or against. That's a lot more than just "neat and plausible".

[Corbi]

sea levels are rising , ice is melting, weather instability is increasing, and yes it IS a result of human activity.

Proof that backs that up?

Reason I ask is the experts agree that millions of yrs ago the earth was warmer and much more jungle like, then the planet went thru an ice age period which ended a mere 10,000 yrs ago. Climate change is real but I honestly do not think man has squat to do with it. One Icelandic volcano will fuk up the atmosphere more in a week than we could do in 100+ yrs.

[Fishman15]

Regarding the weather, one thing we know for sure is that it's always changing...

[DuracellBunny]

I understand your point, but there's a nuance that I think you're missing. Climate models DO change in response to data. What I believe the IPCC was saying in this case is that yes, certain data points have not matched certain predictions. The model does need to be changed in response to this. But adjusting a model is not simply a matter of punching an "enter" key. It's a long process that requires making sure that the new model not only accommodates new data, but also continues to account for previously existing data. The new data is not being ignored. Climate change is indeed science, and the practice of science is slow, deliberate, and careful. A discrepancy in a particular detail of a larger model does not simply upend the entire theory. The theory, which the models attempt to reflect, remains sound, and the overall predictions do match what is being seen in the real world. Finding details that don't match are an important aspect of perfecting the models, but unless they also contradict all previous observations, the model remains provisionally valid.

Scientific models are ALWAYS provisional, especially within a science that is actively being developed. You can safely assume that they will always be wrong on some level, but Asimov's Relativity Of Wrong fully applies. And within that larger view, the climate models that exist are "good enough" for us to know that warming is happening, sea levels are rising , ice is melting, weather instability is increasing, and yes it IS a result of human activity. Within that larger truth, there are details that still need to be figured out.

Which I'm sure is somehow related to Trump and violence, but I haven't seen a good model for that relationship yet.

There are models with 2700 data points of which less than 1000 are from measuring stations; the rest are smoothed data (predictions of another model as to what the data would be at that point). The models are internally consistent due to the data being fed in to it being modeled data. If people produce results that state man made climate change is taking place, they get further funding, whereas their funding stops if their results disagree.

The entire climate change debate is an example of how not to do science. Politicians get the IPCC to flavour things to suit their agenda, which has been admitted to by several of the authors of the IPCC report. The summary for policymakers has line by line approval by the various governments. The entire thing is produced by consensus.

The predictions do not match observations beyond a correlative level. There may well be a definable causal relationship, but the case hasn't been made.

[Brackneyc]

Regarding the weather, one thing we know for sure is that it's always changing...

Weather. I don't need weather. Weather doesn't do it for me.

[so-tex]

So iow, anything but a vote for HC or BS is racist.

See, that makes things much easier.

Welcome home HC.

If Trump is the nominee, then yes.
Just my opinion.

[Fishman15]

Weather. I don't need weather. Weather doesn't do it for me.

I'm telling George to give you your tv back...

[Brackneyc]

I'm telling George to give you your tv back...

No, no, I don't want it back.

Are you gonna watch the Knick game tonight?

[Fishman15]

No, no, I don't want it back.

Are you gonna watch the Knick game tonight?

I don't think I could do it. You know, they always remember the first time. I don't want to be remembered. I wanna be forgotten...

[Oceanside]

Proof that backs that up?

Reason I ask is the experts agree that millions of yrs ago the earth was warmer and much more jungle like, then the planet went thru an ice age period which ended a mere 10,000 yrs ago. Climate change is real but I honestly do not think man has squat to do with it. One Icelandic volcano will fuk up the atmosphere more in a week than we could do in 100+ yrs.

seems to me were blaming cow farts 10 or 15 years ago for all this stuff...

whatever happened to that cow fart theory anyways ?

[ElrondHubbard]

Proof that backs that up?

Reason I ask is the experts agree that millions of yrs ago the earth was warmer and much more jungle like, then the planet went thru an ice age period which ended a mere 10,000 yrs ago. Climate change is real but I honestly do not think man has squat to do with it. One Icelandic volcano will fuk up the atmosphere more in a week than we could do in 100+ yrs.

I'm not going to use the word "proof", because as I pointed out the word is meaningless in science. However, with the exceptions -- minor in larger picture, I would say -- that DB pointed out, the data and the models DO match. And the same models match the temperatures in the more ancient climate regimes as well. It's true that millions of years ago temperatures were warmer than today -- and CO2 levels were higher. Three things have occurred in the past dozen or so millions of years that have forced the climate into a cooler phase.
(I hate making these kinds of posts, because they're too long and nobody reads them, so nobody ends up getting the concepts, but at the same time they're too short to incorporate all the relevant studies and supporting evidence, so people can easily dismiss them.)

1. First, the Antarctic continent drifted towards it's current position encompassing the south pole. This changed ocean circulation patterns and isolated the continent itself from the rest of the global climate, allowing the gradual buildup up the thick ice caps that it holds today. This in turn caused the lowering of sea levels, and the disappearance of the broad shallow shelf seas over the edges of most of the other continents. This drastically reduced the surface area of the oceans, and so reduced the moderating effect that large bodies of water have on the climate. Global climate became more markedly seasonal, with hotter summers and colder winters, and more pronounced wet and dry seasons.

2. Second, the Himalaya mountains continued and amplified a long-term event that had begun millions of years earlier (and had already begun affecting the climate on a smaller scale), the collision of the Indian tectonic plate with the Asian one. This upthrust mountain wall, about 1500 miles long, and the raised Tibetan plateau to it's north, blocked the north-flowing moist monsoons, and produced colder and drier conditions in the Asian interior. Tropical moist air from the south was blocked, cold dry air from the Arctic was not. This also has global effects. In addition, the vigorous weathering and rapid erosion of billions of tons of silicate rock exposed in those mountains chemically removes carbon dioxide from the air and returns it to the ocean in a form where it can be used to grow carbonate rocks -- limestones and coral reefs, which have sequestered a lot of carbon. That's been a big factor in the atmospheric reduction of CO2 over the past 40 million years or so.

3. Thirdly, just about 3 million years ago, in a timing that neatly coincides with the beginning of the Ice Ages, North and South America became joined at the Isthmus of Panama, blocking the equatorial current and its associated wind patterns that helped distribute temperatures relatively evenly around the globe. With the ocean basins more isolated than before, the global climate entered a chaotic phase, with warm and cold cycles being amplified by the Earth's orbital parameters, leading to the recent history of glacial cycles interspersed with warm interglacials.

These orbital cycles, known as Milankovitch Cycles, track the the natural shifts in Earth's climate pretty closely. So you can generally predict, from where the Earth is in its orbital cycles, which direction the climate should be headed.

Modern humanity, and the development of agriculture and civilization, developed at the peak of a particularly warm interglacial period, following the end of a nasty cold spell. So humans are used to it being warm, but not as warm as it was before the ice ages began.

All of this addresses natural variations in global temperature. What it doesn't explain is human influence. The abundant of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in the last couple of hundred years to levels higher than at any time in the last 4 million years, before the ice age.

Why do we think it's human-caused? Because nothing else on the planet has happened to trigger it. The geology of the Earth has not substantially changed since the Isthmus of Panama closed, which drove CO2 levels down. Antarctica has not moved away from the south pole. The Himalaya have not stopped eroding. Panama is still closed. The rate of volcanism has not increased. The Earth's orbital precession has not changed.

There is simply nothing else on Earth capable of causing this change in CO2 levels. The massive burning of fossil fuels, the massive deforestation worldwide, and the massive intensive agriculture are all activities which DO emit large amounts of CO2, and the produce enough to account for all the atmospheric rise that we see. It's actually a pretty simple relationship, which makes its denial seem extremely forced and intentionally false.

The one argument that I think could have any traction at all is the "so what?" argument. It at least acknowledges that the warming is caused by humans. But isn't that a good thing? Maybe it is preventing another glacial cycle, which could be much harder on global agriculture than a warm planet.

Problem is, it's not just stabilizing the climate at current levels. And it's not just a gradual warming that we're experiencing, it's the most rapid climate change in the history of the planet, with the exception of catastrophic mass extinction events such as the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs or the end-Permian extinctions. It's not the warming itself that's such a problem, it's the extreme rapidity of it. All the natural climate changes of the past were at least 10 times more gradual than the one that's occurring today. Species and bio-zones had time to adjust, for the most part. We live in a world where a large part of the global population, much of it's industry, and a huge proportion of its economy, lies at sea level. What's more, with 7 billion people on the planet, there's no open space left for affected coastal populations to move to when their homelands become inundated.

So, even if we decide not to try to prevent further warming (there's really no way to reverse it at this poinnt, and probably no way to stop it from getting much worse), we, and even moreso our children, are going to have to deal with it. It's not going to be easy and it's not going to be pretty. Whatever anyone thinks we should do about it, one thing that will be sure to magnify the disaster in every conceivable scenario is the head-in-the-sand denial of the problem and its cause. That, to me, is the coward's way out.

Sorry this is in a Trump thread, it's much bigger than even his ego.

[ElrondHubbard]

seems to me were blaming cow farts 10 or 15 years ago for all this stuff...

whatever happened to that cow fart theory anyways ?

Cow farts do contribute, but they're a flash in the pan, so to speak.

[DuracellBunny]

......

There is no point in discussing this, you have been mainlining the coolaid.

[acrawlingchaos]

It was just announced that Pete Rose has endorsed Trump.

Apparently, DT supports illegal betting on baseball games now. He's sunk.

Strong analogy that apparently missed the comments directly relating to DT. DT's comments, DT's actions. Those who he endorses is just another piece of the puzzle.

I seriously doubt that Trump is a racist. What he is is an opportunist. And if appealing to racists serves his opportunistic agenda, then he's perfectly happy to do that.

What's difficult is digging under the rhetoric and finding some underlying consistent principle that he draws on for the benefit of the nation as a whole. I haven't been able to find one, but maybe that's just me.

At the end of the day, what is the difference between pandering to racist and being racist yourself? if he's looking to just play the part, he is very convincing.

[dbx]

At the end of the day, what is the difference between pandering to racist and being racist yourself?

Being smart enough to do so, just as one tactic you use, so you can be elected to be POTUS. That's the difference (as sad as it might be)

It's what politics has always been. Always!

Edit: this doesn't mean I agree with your assertion. I just wanted to answer the raw question, assuming your assertion was/is correct. Either way, the vast majority will never know, and it still becomes a positive...or negative...depending on your political/belief stance.

[Brackneyc]

Strong analogy that apparently missed the comments directly relating to DT. DT's comments, DT's actions. Those who he endorses is just another piece of the puzzle.

My point is/was is that DT has no say in who endorses him. No candidate does. I do not think it automatically follows that if group X supports a candidate, that the candidate supports group X. However, I think some do, at least when it benefits their cause.

[acrawlingchaos]

Being smart enough to do so, just as one tactic you use, so you can be elected to be POTUS. That's the difference (as sad as it might be)

It's what politics has always been. Always!

Edit: this doesn't mean I agree with your assertion. I just wanted to answer the raw question, assuming your assertion was/is correct. Either way, the vast majority will never know, and it still becomes a positive...or negative...depending on your political/belief stance.

My assertion is just an opinion. I think he's a bigot and others apparently think it's just a charade; and that the "the blacks" and "the muslims" love him. Perhaps some of us have different ideas of what constitutes prejudice.

My point is/was is that DT has no say in who endorses him. No candidate does. I do not think it automatically follows that if group X supports a candidate, that the candidate supports group X. However, I think some do, at least when it benefits their cause.

Of course no candidate can chose who endorses them, but they can chose who they attempt to appeal to in an attempt to garner votes. I do believe who supports a candidate can be telling to some extent.

[dbx]

My assertion is just an opinion. I think he's a bigot and others apparently think it's just a charade; and that the "the blacks" and "the muslims" love him.

Understood, and all good. And I even think most supporters, if they do a reality check, know he's not well liked among most minorities. And this is just another reason that he might get clobbered in a general election. Hillary (I have to say this), like all dems, sadly, have minorities in their pocket. It kills me that this is a fact, but I'll leave THIS portion of this convo for a thread of its own...someday .

Of course no candidate can chose who endorses them, but they can chose who they attempt to appeal to in an attempt to garner votes. I do believe who supports a candidate can be telling to some extent.

To a very short and limited extent, yes. And trust me, both sides feel this way, but that's also how we all start talking/screaming at each other.... out of whack. It's called making "blanket statements", and we both know they can hold some truth, but are wildly unfair overall, eh?

[acrawlingchaos]

Understood, and all good. And I even think most supporters, if they do a reality check, know he's not well liked among most minorities. And this is just another reason that he might get clobbered in a general election. Hillary (I have to say this), like all dems, sadly, have minorities in their pocket. It kills me that this is a fact, but I'll leave THIS portion of this convo for a thread of its own...someday .

You just made a blanket statement about Democrats and minorities and then chided me for making blanket statements below. Just wanted to point that out.

To a very short and limited extent, yes. And trust me, both sides feel this way

I never stated this was a party specific phenomenon.

but that's also how we all start talking/screaming at each other.... out of whack. It's called making "blanket statements", and we both know they can hold some truth, but are wildly unfair overall, eh?

My belief that Trump is racist goes beyond the company he keeps. I've already made that very clear.

[dbx]

You just made a blanket statement about Democrats and minorities and then chided me for making blanket statements below. Just wanted to point that out.

Yes, Yes, I did. And it's statement supported by nationally known and accepted statistics. IOW, not "my" assertion. Just stating facts.

I never stated this was a party specific phenomenon.

And you didn't have to. I was merely...reminding any readers here .

My belief that Trump is racist goes beyond the company he keeps. I've already made that very clear.

This is quite obvious, lol. And yes, you've made it very clear. The only reason that others, like myself, have responded, is because your "beliefs" that he's racist... and your personal dislike for him... taint your assertions/replies in many responses. I think I "know" you well enough to get an admission of fait accompli here, eh? Hell, most of us are guilty of it at some point.

[ElrondHubbard]

It was just announced that Pete Rose has endorsed Trump.

Apparently, DT supports illegal betting on baseball games now. He's sunk.

Apparently a signed baseball from Pete Rose does not constitute an endorsement:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-ros...-donald-trump/

[acrawlingchaos]

Yes, Yes, I did. And it's statement supported by nationally known and accepted statistics. IOW, not "my" assertion. Just stating facts.

IOW, blanket statements are appropriate when you make them.

And you didn't have to. I was merely...reminding any readers here .

...

This is quite obvious, lol. And yes, you've made it very clear. The only reason that others, like myself, have responded, is because your "beliefs" that he's racist... and your personal dislike for him... taint your assertions/replies in many responses. I think I "know" you well enough to get an admission of fait accompli here, eh? Hell, most of us are guilty of it at some point.

My personal dislike for Trump is because of what I perceive to be an overwhelmingly obvious bigotry. My curt responses are more a product of those to whom I am responding than they are of Trump.

Not sure how fair accompli (done deal?) works into this.

[dbx]

IOW, blanket statements are appropriate when you make them.

C'mon! Mine, though I copped to "blanket", are actually supported statistically...with no argument from any political segment! So, I wouldn't really call it..."mine", as much as you'd like to attribute me stating facts that can be proven in any public library, unfortunate or not, as they relate to your own interests.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not I misjudged you for actually, being open minded and fair......?

My personal dislike for Trump is because of what I perceive to be an overwhelmingly obvious bigotry. My curt responses are more a product of those to whom I am responding than they are of Trump.

Your responses....will always be attributed to being a product unique to....you.... not the people you're responding to. You really need to understand that fact. Not condemning you, sir, just pointing out something you need to come to grips with.

Not sure how fair accompli (done deal?) works into this.

Well, fait accompli, is a relevant term for almost every one of us...that we can cop to, as far as already having done something we wish we'd not been called on when it comes to an argument/discussion...as an example.

Let's back off the pissing contest here, K? Not my aim (pardon the pun) to continue it. Just asking that we BOTH, re-read the thread(s) and contemplate where we MAY have been better served to respond differently, if...not at all.

Good night.

[mslman71]

There are models with 2700 data points of which less than 1000 are from measuring stations; the rest are smoothed data (predictions of another model as to what the data would be at that point). The models are internally consistent due to the data being fed in to it being modeled data. If people produce results that state man made climate change is taking place, they get further funding, whereas their funding stops if their results disagree.

The entire climate change debate is an example of how not to do science. Politicians get the IPCC to flavour things to suit their agenda, which has been admitted to by several of the authors of the IPCC report. The summary for policymakers has line by line approval by the various governments. The entire thing is produced by consensus.

The predictions do not match observations beyond a correlative level. There may well be a definable causal relationship, but the case hasn't been made.

I've made similar statements but to no avail. I'm not a believer or a denier. These words make no sense and are thrown around for political purposes. While I have to admit that I do not know the details of the models that are being used I do know that I do a lot of monte-carlo modeling (radiation transport, electronics failure modes as a result of radiation) and it doesn't take long to get in a situation where you have little to no ability to reasonable identify instabilities in the overall model or reasonably quantify how various aspects of the model interact with one another. In other words, it doesn't take long for things to get very ugly. The simplest metric, global average temperatures, is one that confuses me to no end. I'm not sure exactly what this average means, as in exactly how it was calculated, and there's no assumption about an underlying distribution or distributions of which I am aware for that average to make sense. Anyway, it stands as a matter of fact as far as I'm concerned that humans must influence the environment. The degree to which they do and the proper course of action in response to it are up for debate.